The Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition, holding that the petitioner had alternative efficacious remedies available, including a complaint under the Cr.P.C., and that the underlying dispute was civil in nature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.530 OF 2007
Shaniben Lahanubai Kakwa .... Petitioner
Vs.
Chandrakant Parekh & Anr. .... Respondents
Shri V.N. Mali for the Petitioner.
Ms A.S. Pai, APP, for the Respondent
No.2.
CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &
Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATED: OCTOBER 04, 2007
P.C:
Heard. The petitioner has alternative
efficacious remedy in the form of a complaint to the
Magistrate as well as seeking direction from the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C..
Besides, the allegations in the petition reveal dispute
of civil nature. Considering the same, there is no case
for interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition,
therefore, is rejected. The rejection of the petition,
however, shall not come in the way of the petitioner if
the petitioner desires to approach the competent
authority or the Court in appropriate proceedings.
(Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)
sjs/O7cwp530.7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction in a dispute of civil nature.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaniben Lahanubai Kakwa
Chandrakant Parekh
R.M.S. Khandeparkar
V.K. Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court